* If yes to above, what would your God do in response to human decisions and actions that cause suffering?

Just a thought here. If a being is powerful enough to create an entire universe (not saying, MM, that you necessarily consider Yahweh to be that powerful), this being could literally shape everything. A being that powerful could completely dis-allow the very concept of murder/rape/<insert harmful act here> from ever existing. A child grows up and for whatever reason becomes a sociopath. Some one rubs him/her the wrong way. Murder as a concept or thought or even the word itself does not and cannot exist. He/she is still left with options of possible actions to take, just none that cause serious harm. Actions that cause suffering are reduced or even removed but free will still exists.

^^^ You're not off base at all jkt. And it makes no sense that a product of a god could be so intellectually and morally superior to the god itself. "Supreme Being" kind of indicates superiority, and if he's not very good at it, may that is an indication that he doesn't exist at all.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

* If yes to above, what would your God do in response to human decisions and actions that cause suffering?

Just a thought here. If a being is powerful enough to create an entire universe (not saying, MM, that you necessarily consider Yahweh to be that powerful), this being could literally shape everything. A being that powerful could completely dis-allow the very concept of murder/rape/<insert harmful act here> from ever existing. A child grows up and for whatever reason becomes a sociopath. Some one rubs him/her the wrong way. Murder as a concept or thought or even the word itself does not and cannot exist. He/she is still left with options of possible actions to take, just none that cause serious harm. Actions that cause suffering are reduced or even removed but free will still exists.

Maybe I'm way off base here.

For God to be all powerful ommni-max being the theists hold him up to be,they sure have to ignore large parts of the writings about said deity

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

MM, you give away some now, but agree you could do more. If YOUR resources were limitless, what would stop YOU from feeding all the starving, all the time?

I don't know, because I can't assume that just because my resources were unlimited, some other circumstance might not exist to prevent me from doing that.

You've missed the point entirely. Having limitless resources (like this alleged God has) means that there would be no circumstances holding you back! Is it actually possible for you to be honest about this question? What circumstances can you possibly imagine would prevent you from ending world hunger if you had unlimited resources at your disposal? Think about what was just said - unlimited resources (unending life, health, wealth, prosperity, etc). Can you honestly say that you do-not-know if you would help people if you had such resources? Have you EVER helped anybody? It's quite surprising to see you make those claims since you claim to be a follower of Christ. But perhaps you're not actually a Christian. I'm sure you can see why many of us view this as nothing but an obfuscation to save your theology from refutation.

Median maybe the fact that he would only feed those who worship him(much like his God) could be a factor? Like said God he only has an interest in those who have an interest in him and not the people who actually need the help?

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Median maybe the fact that he would only feed those who worship him(much like his God) could be a factor? Like said God he only has an interest in those who have an interest in him and not the people who actually need the help?

of course that would bring up the question of the distinct lack of manna falling onto Aushwitz.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Median maybe the fact that he would only feed those who worship him(much like his God) could be a factor? Like said God he only has an interest in those who have an interest in him and not the people who actually need the help?

of course that would bring up the question of the distinct lack of manna falling onto Aushwitz.

There are so many examples of this "god" and his lack of "manna"

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Wasn't this supposed to be THE thread where Skep answers people's questions? But all we get are half baked incomplete answers, post-and-runs, and obfuscations. What gives? For a professing Jesus follower this guy certainly is dishonest as they come.

Yes, Nam. I discussed this in my other threads. I was a wild one back in the day before I came to Christ. Now, I am celibate by choice until I get married.

Nothing but Jesus could have changed my life. There's no reason to change if there's no God. God is obviously real. There's absolutely no feeling the world like the Holy Spirit flowing through you. Once someone experiences this, no amount of rational argument can dissuade you from the Eternal King.

What was his name?

-Nam

Didnt see this one.... Your on a roll

-Shaffy

Logged

We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it.

Yes, Nam. I discussed this in my other threads. I was a wild one back in the day before I came to Christ. Now, I am celibate by choice until I get married.

Nothing but Jesus could have changed my life. There's no reason to change if there's no God. God is obviously real. There's absolutely no feeling the world like the Holy Spirit flowing through you. Once someone experiences this, no amount of rational argument can dissuade you from the Eternal King.

Wasn't this supposed to be THE thread where Skep answers people's questions? But all we get are half baked incomplete answers, post-and-runs, and obfuscations. What gives? For a professing Jesus follower this guy certainly is dishonest as they come.

No, he's not dishonest, because he is too dishonest to engage with any inquiry which would result in him being proven dishonest.

There's absolutely no feeling the world like the Holy Spirit flowing through you. Once someone experiences this, no amount of rational argument can dissuade you from the Eternal King.

emphasis added.

that is ABSOLULTEY FALSE. I felt the holy spirit flow through me as a teenager; I vividly recall the incredible feeling of euphoria and peace.

I have come to learn, years later, that it was exactly that--a feeling, brought on by the situation (a form of group hypnosis + months of preparation and anticipation -->release). I have come to learn that I can, with enough effort, elicit a similar state of altered consciousness if I so choose.

I was a True Christian. I have learned enough that now I'm an atheist. Your arguments and observations really aren't convincing.

Logged

Organized religion is simply tribalism with a side order of philosophical wankery, and occasionally a baseball bat to smash the kneecaps of anyone who doesn't show proper deference to the tribe's chosen totem.

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Apart from moving your goalposts from 6000 years to 10,000 years when archaeology proves the biblical dated creation wrong, you also have this little problem.You can see this with your own eyes. Light takes 2.5 million years to reach your eyes from the andromeda galaxy. No doubt you agree with that other guy that your god is a liar and light has not taken so long to reach your eyes.

No, that isn't evidence. Ever heard of in situ? That's how God created the light. It's the exact same thing as God creating Adam and he looks 25 years old even though he is 0 years old.God makes it so simple for us to comprehend.

This is from another thread but I think it should be asked here.Something about your reply Skeptic just does not add up for me.If your god created everything between 6 and 10 thousand years ago then why not have all the information we can observe point to that fact?Why did he not ensure that all carbon dating, for example, would only ever max out at 10,000 years?Why have a universe larger than 10,000 light years?It would seem that god deliberately wants people to not believe in him by leaving proof that the bible he instructed is wrong. Why would he do that ? If he does exist he is deliberately trying to show he does not.Could you perhaps shed some light on this Skeptic?

You're making things up again. Give me a link to your definition. What are you using, Merriam-Webster?

The onus is on you to describe a system without intelligence. Every job I have ever worked had a system they used ad they taught me the system.Should I assume the system was created without intelligence?

flipping burden of proof, your argument is invalid

No, my argument is based on empiricism. I see systems created using intelligence. The universe is a majorly complex system, as is the human body. This means it's only logical that intelligence is responsible for the universe and everything in it.Logic and empiricism are 2 gifts from God that we can use to deduce his existence. The problem is that a lot of atheists try to turn it around against God. But the facts show that empiricism and logic prove God's existence.

Apart from moving your goalposts from 6000 years to 10,000 years when archaeology proves the biblical dated creation wrong, you also have this little problem.You can see this with your own eyes. Light takes 2.5 million years to reach your eyes from the andromeda galaxy. No doubt you agree with that other guy that your god is a liar and light has not taken so long to reach your eyes.

No, that isn't evidence. Ever heard of in situ? That's how God created the light. It's the exact same thing as God creating Adam and he looks 25 years old even though he is 0 years old.God makes it so simple for us to comprehend.

This is from another thread but I think it should be asked here.Something about your reply Skeptic just does not add up for me.If your god created everything between 6 and 10 thousand years ago then why not have all the information we can observe point to that fact?Why did he not ensure that all carbon dating, for example, would only ever max out at 10,000 years?Why have a universe larger than 10,000 light years?It would seem that god deliberately wants people to not believe in him by leaving proof that the bible he instructed is wrong. Why would he do that ? If he does exist he is deliberately trying to show he does not.Could you perhaps shed some light on this Skeptic?

No.

As I have explained, if someone were to examine Adam when God created him, they would say, "Male, about 25 years old." But, this would be wrong because Adam would technically be 1 minute old but he would APPEAR to be 25 years old.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

As I have explained, if someone were to examine Adam when God created him, they would say, "Male, about 25 years old." But, this would be wrong because Adam would technically be 1 minute old but he would APPEAR to be 25 years old.

So you're suggesting that when your supergod created everything he also created it with light already in transit between stars?

Logged

Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

As I have explained, if someone were to examine Adam when God created him, they would say, "Male, about 25 years old." But, this would be wrong because Adam would technically be 1 minute old but he would APPEAR to be 25 years old.

So you're suggesting that when your supergod created everything he also created it with light already in transit between stars?

Yes, Adam could see the stars right away.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

As I have explained, if someone were to examine Adam when God created him, they would say, "Male, about 25 years old." But, this would be wrong because Adam would technically be 1 minute old but he would APPEAR to be 25 years old.

So you're suggesting that when your supergod created everything he also created it with light already in transit between stars?

Yes, Adam could see the stars right away.

If I am understanding things correctly, because of what is written in Genesis 1 and 2, the known universe is about 6,000 to 10,000 years old and was created by God with everything in motion as we see it today? Based on scientific observation the universe appears to be approximately 14 billion years old. Correct?

Ever curious,

OldChurchGuy

Logged

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

As I have explained, if someone were to examine Adam when God created him, they would say, "Male, about 25 years old." But, this would be wrong because Adam would technically be 1 minute old but he would APPEAR to be 25 years old.

So you're suggesting that when your supergod created everything he also created it with light already in transit between stars?

Yes, Adam could see the stars right away.

If I am understanding things correctly, because of what is written in Genesis 1 and 2, the known universe is about 6,000 to 10,000 years old and was created by God with everything in motion as we see it today? Based on scientific observation the universe appears to be approximately 14 billion years old. Correct?

Ever curious,

OldChurchGuy

That is correct. But science is based on the premise of getting rid of God as an explanation, plus it's entirely circular.

That is correct. But science is based on the premise of getting rid of God as an explanation, plus it's entirely circular.

Genesis can't be correct. Why? Because God isn't real.

Strawman. Science is not about "getting rid of god". It's about looking at the evidence, and seeing where it leads.

Genesis is considered incorrect not because "god is in it", but because there is a lack of evidence to support the story.

Polonium halos prove the Earth is young though. It's suppressed because they want God out of the picture. True origin has a whole thesis about the halos, along with rebuttals to scientists who say that it's nonsense.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

That is correct. But science is based on the premise of getting rid of God as an explanation, plus it's entirely circular.

Genesis can't be correct. Why? Because God isn't real.

Strawman. Science is not about "getting rid of god". It's about looking at the evidence, and seeing where it leads.

Genesis is considered incorrect not because "god is in it", but because there is a lack of evidence to support the story.

Polonium halos prove the Earth is young though. It's suppressed because they want God out of the picture. True origin has a whole thesis about the halos, along with rebuttals to scientists who say that it's nonsense.

Who does, and why?

Logged

Organized religion is simply tribalism with a side order of philosophical wankery, and occasionally a baseball bat to smash the kneecaps of anyone who doesn't show proper deference to the tribe's chosen totem.

That is correct. But science is based on the premise of getting rid of God as an explanation, plus it's entirely circular.

Genesis can't be correct. Why? Because God isn't real.

Strawman. Science is not about "getting rid of god". It's about looking at the evidence, and seeing where it leads.

Genesis is considered incorrect not because "god is in it", but because there is a lack of evidence to support the story.

Polonium halos prove the Earth is young though. It's suppressed because they want God out of the picture. True origin has a whole thesis about the halos, along with rebuttals to scientists who say that it's nonsense.

This Polonium halos idea is new to me. Did a little search on Wikipedia and found the following:

"Robert V. Gentry studied halos which appeared to have arisen from Po-218 rather than U-238 and concluded that solid rock must have been created with these polonium inclusions, which decayed with a half-life of 3 minutes. They could not have been formed from molten rock which took many millennia to cool (the standard theory) because polonium decays in a few minutes. This is taken by creationists as evidence that the Earth was formed instantaneously (Gentry 1992).

Critics of Gentry, including Thomas A. Baillieul (Baillieul 2005) and John Brawley (Brawley 1992), have pointed out that Po-218 is a decay product of radon, which as a gas can be given off by a grain of uranium in one part of the rock and migrate to another part of the rock to form a uraniumless halo. Apparently a large number of radon atoms are caught or absorbed at a particular point. This has not been proved experimentally, but is supported by the fact that Gentry's "polonium halos" are found along microscopic cracks in rocks that also contain uranium halos (Wakefield 1988).

Gentry's work has been continued and expanded by the Radioactivity and the Age of the Earth (R.A.T.E.) project that was operating between 1997 and 2005 (Wieland 2003). However, Collins (1997), Wakefield (1988) and others have repeatedly offered rebuttals of the radiohalo evidence for a young Earth in peer-reviewed publications."

All this raises a question that I am still trying to resolve. That is, why should theists feel threatened by advances in science? If the advances show that a given theistic understanding is incorrect, why not adopt the new information and go on with the work of the church to take care of widows and orphans?